Thread 4438936

Is a micro four thirds good enough for a road trip camera? I want a camera that can take good photos, especially at night, the sky, and landscapes and documenting.
I currently have an EM 1-III, but I keep wondering if it's actually good enough, and it is, and I'm just being taken for a ride with gear autism, or if it is actually shit
I really, REALLY, want an "always carry" camera that can do anything, in any weather

>>4438936 (OP)
>I want a camera that can take good photos
Disqualified
>especially at night
Extra disqualified
Meming aside, the one you have with you will btfo anything you can't be fucked bringing because it's too big and bulky to be fucked.

It's fine
>at night
I mean if you have a tripod it's fine bro
though for the price of your EM 1-III you could get a a7C which is better in every way

>>4438943
I already have an EM1-III THOUGH

>>4438936 (OP)
Get a film camera with a 35mm lens and some Cinestill 800T.

>>4438936 (OP)
No. Its insufficient compared to FF. I shoot mft too but thats because i hate myself and dont think i deserve nice pictures. Ff is way better.

M43 has no tonality, just contrast, and makes everything look like plastic

I can spot m44 and ff in my own shots clear as day. Only other peoples leave open the possibility they just used a snoy gm at iso 6400.

Fuji XT-5 would be a major upgrade, handles low light extremely well, having IBIS. also has film simulations for 'vibes'.

The other suggestion to get a 35 mm film camera is also good, and a way cheaper option.

>>4438936 (OP)
Can it technically do it? Yes.

Is it good at it? No. The photos will always look kind of plasticky and mushy. If this is really your hobby, get a better camera like a sony a7c + viltrox 50mm f2 air or sony 40mm f2.5.
>the weather! the weather seal!
Extreme weather sealing is for DSLR sized shit (which in film would be called medium format sized), do photojournalist carry and your camera won't get soaked. Companies get away with market stratification here for a reason. Every brand to rely on weather sealing as a plus to date has failed because undercoat carry, hats, and umbrellas leave weather sealing to constantly-snapping professionals (already have the nicest FF, bought with clients money, insured with clients money) and 3 hobbyists doing time lapses but refusing to put a plastic bag over their camera.

>>4438936 (OP)
Be extremely careful asking about mft on here. There are people that lie about specs, fake/steal images, and pretend to like these cameras in an effort to get you to waste your money. It's all for lulz. You know?

>>4438993
He already fell for their bullshit ($1000 20mp mft camera lmfao)

>>4438936 (OP)
yeah micro four thirds is amazing. i took this photo with my om-1. it looks way better than fool frame and shitty large format film.

Behold the quality of the om-1

Large sensors are a waste of money. Buy micro four thirds.

>>4439003
Nice! I have the OM-5 myself and I'm really loving the color science and tones I get out of it.

>>4439010
Here's how it performs in low light. 99% as good as full frame :D
Why do people think they need more? That is extremely cringe and unbased. The minimum real upgrade from micro four thads is medium format TBQH!

>>4438936 (OP)
>I have it and I wonder if it's good enough
If you're satisfied with the quality of the pictures it produces then it's enough, if not then it's not.
>an always carry camera
Even m43 is too big then, get a GR if you're fine with the fixed focal length or an RX100 if you want a zoom lens.

>>4439011
>>4439010
>>4439006
>>4439003
Wow. These mft dogtographers really take beautiful pics of their pups. So wholesome and the outstanding IQ is the chef's kiss on top of these skillful shots!

>>4439016
I know, I'm really impressed by the high sharpness and low noise they get out of OM System cameras even in low light... the nikon shills have lied to us...

>>4439017
Where a nikon shill may lie, we OM system professionals have pictures to share!

Fuckin hell, thread sounds like a group of cultists trying to convince you the koolaid isn't poisoned

>>4439021
And yet they have photographic proof mft is good and you just have a shitpost

>>4439023
Ah the old "all comments must be accompanied by a snapshit or else they're invalid" argument.

Bro, you all sound like some generic marketing AI. Anyone who is actually genuine won't hesitate to point out something's shortcomings as well. But as we all know, smaller sensors are just as good as bigger ones, so everyone should just use their phone.

>>4439026
What shortcomings? Can you post a full frame photo that proves mft is insufficient?

>>4439026
It is really simple, my friend. The OM professional system has no shortcomings.

The perfect camera system is within your grasp.

>>4438986
>do photojournalist carry and your camera won't get soaked
I have never been anywhere in my life cold enough that I can wear a jacket. Even in winter in Germany I sweat if I wear anything more than a t shirt.

>>4439034
Is the caliphate of germanistanis weather really that mild? All but 3 months out of the year here in white mans land it's no warmer than 60f

>>4439035
Last time I was there it probably got to around -9 C or something.

>>4438936 (OP)
it's good enough if you think it's good enough. Go take some sample pics of the type of stuff you want to do

>>4438936 (OP)
Print a photo at a size you think is reasonable. A3 is more than big enough.
Render it to JPEG and set it as your screensaver for a while.
Stop pixel peeping.
Is it good enough now?

>>4439064
The quality of m43 is actually pretty good, more or less what you'd expect from smaller than full frame and larger than a phone sensor. It's better quality than 35mm film and plenty of people who shit on it will tell you all about how amazing their niggon eff three is. The problem is that film photos don't look anything like phone pictures so they're pretty novel to zoomers, whereas m43, especially when overexposed, does sometimes look like phone pictures.

>>4439064
I like how the only argument for these shit cameras is "STOP! NOTICING! THINGS!!!!"
>You can ONLY enjoy photographs like THIS
>*4x6 print from 5ft away*
Yeah that's so heckin normal.. normal people zoom in on shit on screens, thats why phones are 50mp now. You are the weird coper.

>>4439067
35mm film is 24mp ff.

>>4439075
>35mm film is 24mp ff.
Not gunna ask for a source cus I know there isn't one, but could you post a 35mm film scan with 24mp of detail?

>>4439078
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2020/02/8x10-film-vs-iq4-150mp/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/large-format-vs-digital/
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia-tim-parkin/

>>4439082
>Well, here are the numbers!
>No you can't fucking see the pictures, chud
>It's 24mp because it just is OK

>>4439084
If 6x7 is 80mp-100mp (drum scans are bit shit, a GFX + pixel shift + stitching could do better) then 35mm is * .5^2 = 20-25mp

It always devolves into this doesn't it...

>>4439097
Yes. Every road leads to mft being the superior format. It has even better quality than 4x5 film.

The true superior format is simply looking with your eyes and remembering the scene
No camera is as good as your eyes

>>4439099
Incorrect. Mft is the ultimate system. The perfect sensor lovingly placed within each OM professional camera system is far exceeds the power and capacity of the human. Full frame is inferior to the human eye. These are truths all real photographers now and understand.

>>4439003
>>4439010
Damn dp* must be the bomb

*dog photography

>>4438936 (OP)
im sorry anon but if you dont have the canon r1 you should just give up photography and pick up crayons or water painting.

So after all that, what's the verdict?

>>4439021
this board is genuinely unusable for this kind of thing. sorry anon

>>4439287
It is not a cult. It is a movement. A movement of professional photographers that have found photographic salvation through the almighty micro four thirds sensor and the sacrifices it has made so we can all go to photo heaven.

>>4438936 (OP)
it's the one you have with you so it's perfectly fine.

FF is nice but to actually realize the quality upgrade you need a camera body made newer than 2019 and expensive lenses. MFT gets you 80% of the way there with a 10+ year old body and ultra depreciated used lenses.

>mft
>low light
Do not fall for the meme like I did
Just get a full frame and be free

>>4439712
I've seen noiseless photographs from the best sized sensor(MFT) at over 12k ISO and they were literal perfection. They still had so so much 3d pop and BEAUTIFUL tonality.

>>4439745
Sure, you'll post them right?
>i-i d-don't have them
Convenient

>>4439746
That is were you are so very wrong mon frayer.

>>4439754
Now do it in low light
And not a picture of a fucking dog

>>4439755
Oh, I am mft real photographer. These are all from some website and soms guy. You look for your own 12k+ ISO dogless photos if you want. I gave it my all and it wasn't enough I guess.

>>4439758
>entire post was about how pathetic mft is in low light
>"oh bro look at this retarded image of my dog that's still low resolution and horribly soft, low light btfo!"
You're a tard

>>4439760
It is a beautiful image quality. Exceptional tonality, world class colour science, 3 dimensional pop out the ass, and it has that sweet sweet mft glow that no other imaging system can replicate. They try, oh they try, but in the end... It's just a cheap imitation of the real deal.

>>4439761
You actually sound delusional.

>>4439770
He’s trying too hard and going full retard. Trolling works better when it’s more subtle.

>>4439779
You are a tasteless retard. Sorry about that. Might be terminal.

>>4439770
The only delusion is your inability to recognize quality. Sorry about that. Might be terminal.

>>4439754
For ISO 128000 m43, this looks ten times better than the nikon dogfucker750

>can't read
>porn addicted freak
>rent free

That's mft for yah!

>>4439840
Although the GLORY and GREATNESS of mft is like none other you must be careful to not destroy our reputation with lies and slander. These are not things that real photographers do!
I said 12k iso not 128k iso. We are the greatest, but for real reasons! Not ones you manifest within that little brain of yours!

>>4439847
You don't need porn addiction to acknowledge that someone who only takes photos of their unfixed large wolf like dog might just be a furry

>>4439851
i remember when huskyfag and doghair started posting and they started out with eerily suggestive photos where you could see the german shepherd's balls or weiner and the husky's weirdly obviously large d-hole

>>4439851
Slanderous freak with the sickest of fantasies!

>>4439853
Show me the proof.

>>4439856
I didn't save the weird dog pussy/dog nuts photos. Why the fuck would I save them, or bookmark them? Like I guess that's what I'd do if i was you lol but if i take a picture of a dog i try to make sure their dick, asshole, or weirdly large vagina is 100% out of the frame or hidden by something because no one wants to look at dog genitalia.

>>4439857
In all of my mft years I've never seen a single image you're describing posted by them, which is why I ask. I HATE their mft hatred.

>>4439857
I have seen those bastards say they love their dog.

>>4439859
I remember at least 5. Sorry but someone who just takes photos of their dog is sus.

>>4439863
Between the both of them or each??! I have seen other non dog pics from BOTH of those bloody bastards and they all look way worse than my beautiful mft shots! Especially doghairs stupid film snapshits.

>>4439863
I remember something about husky cuck calling his husky a "dogwife with a cookie" and shepherd fuck being a "feral friday poster" or something like that. Some weird furry rp lingo. I think they just dress up in wolf costumes and have gay sex and their dogs are just fashion accessories to shitpost about.

>>4439864
Its so sad you're bullying yourself. I guess that's what too many milkbones will do to your brain.

Stop eating dog treats mmkay?

>>4439874
I am mftgod not these filthy foolframers. is this how you cope with your inferior sensor?

>>4439879
Are you sure these posts are ironic?
Have you thought about selling your Hy6 kit yet?

>>4439887
when doghair closes his eyes, he sees alex burke with his em10iv in one hand and 4x5 on a tripod, and feels a little longing knowing alex photomogs him hard while he has a 2% chance of every producing something decent with 8x10

if anything he should sell everything but the hy6 and go hiking with just the MF and a tripod since he has too many skill issues to handle LF photography in the field (and can't keep negatives clean)

>>4439887
I only own the worlds greatest sensors ever made! Mft! Please do not insult me by saying I own anything else.
I have a cat not a dog btw. The micro four thirds sensor pairs perfectly with a cat to be the greatest photographic duo to exist.

>>4439890
That fool only uses his mft as a lightmeter. Imagine the heights he could have reached if it was his main camera.

>>4439892
And his snapshit machine, as not to waste film on taking the same photo of his pet or houseplant or whatever 100 times. You know. That's a smart strategy. Have a "doing photography" camera, and a "taking pictures" camera, because they are different tasks with different overall requirements. There are some good in betweens for people with lower standards for "doing photography", like the sony a7c/ii/r, but if you're autistic enough to notice "tonality" and DOF effects then it's 6x6+ for you and you have to separate, because FF won't satisfy you any more than mft.

Have you ever thought that maybe you and huskycuck get so manic on /p/ because deep down inside you know the insults have some weight to them? You're not making good art? You're redoing the same photo over and over again and wondering if your gear or technique is good enough yet? You're improving at a glacial pace and taking refuge in every diversion possible? That you're halfway between wanting to generate a constant stream of content to get internet attention with, and doing nothing?

>>4439893
Mft does it all, schizo.

>>4439893
Don't be so rude.

>>4439894
MFT does it all if you aren't autistic/OCD. You are autistic/OCD.

So, doghair, what do you think? Your progress has been backwards and then glacial since you got more active on /p/. The more gear you buy the more backlash your photos get not because of the gear (you could say it was all 4x5 forevever and we'd believe it) but because they are all test shots and repeats.

When will you get out of the gear rut?

>>4439899
You sound very angry at this doghair fellow. I've seen a wide variety of pictures he has posted in fgt. Lol. They aren't mft quality, but still.

>>4439901
You can still get positive recognition if you "start over" after getting out of the gear rut.

You'd just have to... not post your farm or dog, or brag about your gear, on /p/, until you re-established yourself as more of a photographer and less of a test shot taker.

It's really true, you went steeply downhill during the time from when you used a leica and attempted street to the time you started being an LF memer on /p/. The response you get here wasn't positive. Any attention might feel like good attention and a laugh to someone with your personality but it hasn't been good for you mentally. You need to improve. You need to stop being a gearfag and stop taking the same test shots over and over again.

>>4439902
Lmao. No.

>>4439902
the sad truth is he has no interest in actually being good at photography re: content and his hobby is cameras

>Replies:82
>Images:8
>less than 10% of the posts ITT have photos
Yeah. MFT. Woo.

>>4439914
This is the power of mft.

Terrible, don't do it op

Pls don't look

Sorry

Ask Ken if don't believe me

>>4439931
>>4439929
>>4439925
>>4439923
it does look pretty bad. dont even have to zoom in to see how hazy it is, and a lot of subtle shading that should be there just isn't because it's out of the limited range of the inferior digital data collection device, so things look plasticky.

in terms of quality and lifelike rendering of light and shadow, 35mm film is leagues better than micro four thirds. mft was never meant to substitute for a real camera. it's for social media/family memories grade snaps and was mostly replaced by phones except for higher IQ detail noticers (hence its only sold new in europe and japan anymore, because the US is less than 56% smart people)

>>4439912
>he has no interest in actually being good at photography re: content and his hobby is cameras
... I know.

Some people don't fully understand that all photographers like cameras, but not all people that like cameras are photographers. The latter can grasp some of the reasons photographers care about cameras but can't apply any of it so they take off kilter pictures of eggs and repeat the same dog on couch photo every week.

>>4439963
Post photo?

>>4439963
then why give him advice when /p/ was better off before /an/ showed up

>>4439979
I don't need braindead advice from angry people that constantly make shit up about me. Everytime I post a photo that becomes the "thing I always post and someone complains about it. I've posted 1 or 2 pictures of eggs and 1 new picture of dog in roughly the last 3 weeks.
"Stop taking pictures of the things you enjoy taking pictures of because I dont like them" is the worst and stupidest advice I have ever heard in my life. It's comically stupid.

I'm usually just minding my own business in fgt and rpt. Occasionally I shitpost, but don't we all? There's like 10 threads of people talking shit and lying about me at all times lol. It's rent free behavior.

Here is an example of my average post because you guys clearly need an update. >>4435669 it's a nicely framed shot that I actually printed. It's boring without proper context/meaning, but it clearly shows I'm at least thinking about composition and can take a technically good shot. This is not a terrible photograph it's an average photo and a reasonably nice looking print.

I have never seen a single photograph posted from any one of the weirdly controlling and angry trolls. Post your work if you really wanted me to care about what you say. I'll even admit it is better than anything I've ever taken. I don't care. I'm not in a competition with anyone. I'm just having fun with cameras I enjoy using and making prints.

>>4439983
If that makes you feel better, I don't mind you and even enjoy the eggposting

>>4439983
>photography level 0.1: centered tree
too much time gearfagging

>>4439987
Well thanks anon. Im glad someone has enjoyed the 6ish egg pics I've posted in the last month.

I am taking a new egg pic right now and got my setup perfectly aligned this time. It took me like an hour of fiddling around to get it right lol. Now that I have my method down it will be a lot easier in the future.

>>4439989
Braindead criticism and a testament to your extremely poor taste.

>>4439989
Not comparing my work to his at all. This is definitely a way better farm pic than I've taken. I would like to change that soon tho.
Just wanted to show you one of many alex burke shots that have a centered tree.

Are these really too much time gearfagging level .1 snapshits?

>>4439992
eggcellent!

>>4439999
Not even close to >>4439983 bruv

content contrast and and color are everything. alex looks for the perfect farm. you never leave yours.

>>4439999
tree is in the way

>>4440009
:D I'm pretty eggstatic if there's just one person that enjoys my pics, so thanks. I really have a lot of fun making them.

>>4440016
Lol so true! That's why my shot is clearly better composed. Step aside Mr. Burke!

>>4440010
You can't read, huh?

>>4439999
Do you actually think this is as bad as what you posted? You just don't have an eye for aesthetics do you

>>4440034
Are you stupid? I stated very very clearly that it is way better and that I wasn't posting it to compare between mine.

I was pointing out how absurdly stupid it is to say "centered tree = .1 level photography, stop gearfagging." It's just as retarded as saying centered horizon = garbage photo.

>>4440034
I also clearly stated that my photo was not bad or good it is just an average photograph that has some thought put into the composition. There's no glaring problems with it compositionally or technically. It's just boring for someone with no context or appreciation of that tree or building. I enjoy comfy pics like that one and the person I made it for loves it a lot.

You can clearly see the leading lines of the road, rule of thirds horizon, the tree being centered was purposeful because I wanted to emphasize how big it was etc. It is not a sloppy or careless photo by any means.

Could it better? Yeah, and I want to keep working on it. I enjoy choosing a subject and spending time extracting the best photograph I can from it. That was attempt no. 1.

>>4440046
>my photo was not bad or good
Is boring a type of bad?
>my mom likes it
k

Good photography is inexorably tied to NEW. New places. New people. You have to stop gearfagging and leave the farm.

>>4440049
You are still so so stupid. Like I said it is boring without context or connection. Its a comfy pic of a pretty tree and a little shack.

Yes, you must LEAVE the studio to take good pictures. You CANNOT take a good picture in your studio! Why don't you work on your photography instead of giving the absolute lowest IQ advice I've ever heard.

I shoot 8x10 for two reasons. Firstly I enjoy using the camera more than any other, and secondly I enjoy making contact prints, especially with alt processes. You basically need a 4x5 or 8x10 to make contact prints.(Yes you can make digital negatives I know, but it is not the same and way less fun) This is not gearfagging. I want to make contact prints, so I use the camera that lets me make contact prints. I never say my photographs are good or better simply because I use big camera. YOU project that onto me like so many other weird and made up things. It's very telling actually.

>>4440053
>You must leave the studio to take good pictures
Or get a new person in it.

You got too much ego stop taking the bait and go read a book

>>4440055
>Noooooooo don't disagree with these stupid things I'm saying because I am mad at you!

It's a retarded thing to say because you can take a NEW picture of an old thing or something you've taken many pictures of in the past. Yeah its stupid to take the exact same picture of something over and over again, but I don't. Not even my dofs pics are exactly the same and it is ridiculous to say that.

I'm not the one with the ego, big boy. I constantly say my photos are average, I need to keep practicing, X photographer is way better than, admit or agree with GOOD critique etc.

The one with the ego is the nophoto trolls that can't even post a single photograph and gives out the most retarded advice thinking it is this deep and wise master photographer type advice. Bro you are too scared to even post a single photograph.

>>4440046
no your photo is bad. too dark. boring sky. just a backyard in nowheresville, usa. you are way more into processes and weird cameras than you are into images. clearly.

>>4440059
See
>>4439994

>>4440059
Wait wait instead of samefagging with another braindead critique can you post one of your photos??? Surely you have a remarkable image to share with all of us.

>>4440061
i don’t negotiate with furries

>>4440062
LOL I knew you were going to make a lame excuse to not post photo, seething samefag. Thanks for proving I was correct yet again. Haha.

Anyways I'm going to stop engaging with the samefagging loser in this thread unless he posts a photo he has made. We all know you're going to continue to make rent free posts, but at least I got to show myself and anyone reading this thread just how stupid you are once again. Thanks!

>>4440064
>only one person dislikes me
sad delusion

Egg picture taken. Developing soon. This is sort of a sneak peak I guess.

I wonder how much better this camera would be if I put an mft camera on the back instead of using lousy sheet film.

>>4440070
what is with the egg meme?

>>4440106
I have many egg. I take incredible and highly artistic pic of eggs. I print them via albumen printing or whatever. Then I attempt to sell them at farmers market alongside eggs. I think it's pretty funny to use an 8x10 camera to take egg pics also.

People really enjoy my egg pics. I actually sold my first one last week, and gave a couple away to some good customers. Yeah you got that right. I'm a professional egg based art photographer now.

Try taking some egg pics and you'll understand very quickly why it is so egciting.

>>4438936 (OP)
>Is a micro four thirds good enough for a road trip camera?
Yes. Literally better than FF Sony cameras.

>>4440113
>Try taking some egg pics
alright I think I will

>>4440119
YES! Try it. I would love to see some! It's really fun and the shape is really nice for playing around with different light set ups and stuff!!

Here's my latest egg drop fresh out the developer. >>4440118

>>4440116
>Caring about the video quality of a 61mp stills camera
>at 300% zoom
Are youtubers this stupid

The a7rv still looks better. Motion is much smoother. Colors are more natural. No weird overly vibrant AI HDR and oversharpening. Impressive that a camera designed for video dead last, shot by an actual retard, ignoring its focal length advantage and using the vloggoid wide angle, can still beat a phone that has apple's best indians fine tuning AI infilling and enhancements while seething about sony.

Next, do midjourney vs nikon.

>>4440121
alright I did my best

>>4440195
Wow. I like your take on the egg pic! The egg feels very comfortable amongst the glasses. Nicely done! Was it as fun as you thought it would be?

>>4440229
Thanks, I thought it was kinda dumb at first but I realized I needed to improve my lighting and composition. Then it was fun. This was the other shot I was pretty happy with

>>4440229
AI post

>>4440250
schizo theory: doghair is an ai engagement bot

>>4440360
>>4440250
I was simply eggcited to see his based and art pilled egg pic! I see why someone would think ai, but it's just enthusiasm, nerd.

>>4440230
Hard to say which one I like better. First one is a little romantic vibes and the second one is more eggy vibes if that makes sense.

>>4440394
yeah the second one feels less dramatic and more honest to me. I guess it's more of the subject since it's lit more where as the first one is a little more atmospheric and it blends with everything else a little more

>>4438936 (OP)
Four turds is incapable of taking a good photo.
If you want snapshits, it's fine, but don't be fooled into thinking it's some neat cool photography tool.
Four turds is basically smartphone photography with buttons and dials instead of a touch screen. Sure, some lenses are okay and sensors are "okay" but none are ever good. Not truly, at least.

A good full frame shot at base ISO properly exposed delivers image quality four turds cannot even dream of.
Depending on the subject four turds can do well for macro photography despite its issues. When lens magnification is critical and quality/noise/etc comes in second, turd cameras can suffice.
If you're trying to photograph "close up" things that aren't actually macro (1:1 or larger) then you will benefit from a larger sensor.

Trying to magnify a spider or something on full frame when the sensor itself is larger than the subject becomes a challenge. Four turds, being smaller, requires less magnification to fill its tiny frame, and that paired with its higher PPI sensor gives you an easier time getting subjects magnified large enough to not be aliased by the low res pixel counts and macro shit is usually edited/stacked/multi-sampled enough for noise and a shit sensor to not matter that much.
If you have the money, optics, and time, full frame can do better but the point is turds can do okay for entry level macro where optical magnification outweighs sensor quality.

>>4439082
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DIGITAL ISN'T SUPPOSED TO LOSE LIKE THIS!!!!
FUCK YOU 24MP IS ALL YOU NEED
P-P-PIXEL PEEPING SCUM!

>>4441696
Yeah if you spend $500 on a gw690 and then another $10000 on a gfx100s, macro, and copy table 6x9 is capable of going up to 700mp

>>4441696
This is all very interesting academically, but who is really looking at photos this closely? I'm not an archivalist, and perhaps if I were I would care about this level of detail, but most people on earth will never look at photos like this. I'm not going to argue that better isn't actually better or something, but when viewed the way people are going to view them, whether that's on a phone screen or a large print, nobody is really going to be able to tell (or care).

>>4442297
It's about color.

When printed optically direct to photopaper or with high resolving printers, large film has smoother color transitions, better shading, and richer colors overall (especially in reds and blues) because this fine detail resolution makes it more like looking at the actual object instead of a "reality scan"

>>4439082
This is not 35mm

>>4438984
>XT-5 handles low light extremely well
Cramming 40MP into an APS-C x-troon sensor is a good thing?
>film simulations for 'vibes'
Lmao.
>get a 35 mm film camera is also good, and a way cheaper option
If he's shooting low light, 35mm film is not a good option, as most usable stocks top out at 800 ISO and you want to err towards overexposing most of the time anyway. It will also not be cheaper than something like a 5DmkII + 50/1.4 in the long run.

>>4440764
get a life dude you write like a total loser

>>4442414
He cant, he shoots Sony

I was thinking about making another egg picture today

>>4440764
You write like a winner with a life. Thanks for the solid advice.

>>4442414
>>4442421
dhat dere duality of man

>>4442420
Do it. You saw my last one with my hand in it, right? I did another hand + egg shot today that needs developing. I set my flash up for it.

>>4440121
Hello nigger. I will also take some egg pictures. I will let you know when they're done boiling.

>go outside
>take photos
>realise /p/ are nophoto gearfags

>>4442450
yeah I just saw it. Your prints are wild dude

>>4442454
Be careful with boiled eggs. They'll be hot.

>>4442460
:D

>>4442454
>>4442460
Dropping the sneak peak. Tommorow I will post the print in fgt.

>>4442520
Egg falling right on you head. The rest will be in /rpt/

>>4442526
Woah egg candles. It's fun how everyone's take on the egg picture is so unique. I never would have thought of an egg candle!

Just one of the many wonderful aspects of eggtography.

>>4442535
I'm forced to find ways to make eggs more interesting

>>4442535
If he had actually wanted to make it interesting he could have poked a hole in the top and bottom of each egg, removed the liquid, put wax and wicks into them, and then made them into actual candles for the photo

>>4442544
Aren't we all...

I think 8x10 has such amazing output that you almost don't need things to be "interesting" as long as you have decent composition and lighting because it can produce such a beautiful print. Beauty in the mundane and all that. I don't mean it as a cop out for taking good pics either. It's more a stylistic/aesthetic decision if that makes sense.

>>4442546
Egg candles would be pretty cool, but a lot of messy work. That could be a really fun way to make candles in general because every egg has its own unique shape.

I regret buying into this meme format because it's dead and all the lenses and bodies are old. I double regret it because I have GAS and just dropped 400 bones on a pan leica. Why am I doing this this shit will have zero resale.

>>4443133
Stop lying and saying your phone pictures are m43. Not a single person is fooled by your trickery. Very weak bait.

>>4443133
Still slightly better off than falling for the Sony meme

>>4443135
My phone takes better photos

>>4443137
looking nice and milky ma boy

>>4443144
Thanks bud

>>4443146
wasn't a compliment

>>4443137
I think the dairy-like appearance of this image really suits the overall theme and style. Super nice shot.

>>4443147
Yeah I know the sarcasm doesn't translate well I been shitting on the pictures too

>>4443135
It's far too detailed to be a phone pic, those background trees would've been total mush.

>>4443133
>>4439931
>>4439929
>>4439925
>>4439923
these aren't that bad, seem way better than phone pics, what camera are you using? and if it's actually a phone, what phone? the pics my phone takes look like SHIT

>>4439923
>>4439929
>>4439931
I like these a lot, thanks for sharing.

>>4443133
>buying camera gear for the sake of reselling it rather than keeping it

>>4445407
Same poorfag mentality as “gotta beat the game fast for max trade in value”. They could never afford it to begin with.

Is this this mft thread? Which of the Oly 1.2 primes do I get? I'm thinking of replacing my zoom with two of them, 17mm and 45mm are the logical choice but I really like 25mm. Is 25mm and 45mm a bad combo? I'll rarely do landscapes and am nervous 25mm might be too narrow; plus the 17mm is a very sharp lens that would make beautiful landscape photos. Maybe I'll throw the 12/2 or 17/1.8 in instead... Thoughts? Anyone else use a prime kit like this?

>>4445579
none, they defeat the purpose of micro four thirds and dont even accomplish anything
>all that bullshit for f2.4
there is a reason mft fanboys are so delirious and hostile whenever sony ff comes up and its because as bad as sony is compared to nikon, this is the exact area where it steamrolls aps-c and m43.

>>4445605
how are your prime pancakes on FE going on?

>>4445613
Given the excessive shallowness of mirrorless mounts, I do not believe it is possible for sony to make a pancake that is not exactly as bad as nikon's. And nikon's pancake is a genuinely bad lens. The only good FF pancake is canons, and they also have the greatest flange distance (20mm). It's also not that good. It still vignettes, breathes, and buzzes a ton compared to a normally built 28mm f2.8.

The real question is why can't L mount have a good pancake? Manual focus fixed f8? Do leica's lawyers have their hands in that, or is panasonic deathly afraid of eliminating any reason anyone might have to buy micro four thirds?